Talk:Corina Abraham

Custodian of ...
The article currently says

Should this be "custodian of ... land ..."? If so, which land? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * it more parallels "Professor of Maths at UWA.." therefore its doesnt say land nor does it define any specific place because a custodian is more, its cultural, its spiritual, its mythological, its ancestral, its the whole of life, its the past, its the future, its about sharing from the past and into the future, about protecting and singing what has been and what will/could be, it handing on to the future that which has been handed on through time. Gramatically it could drop the word people because Noongar means people but then it would lose meaning for most people who wouldnt understand that Noongar is an adopted word of english, that has been given a narrow definition but in its origin language it has a broader more generic meaning. Gnangarra 11:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a citation - the letter to the PM says "I’m ... a custodian of the Whadjuk Noongar people". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to trim Opposition to Roe 8
I suggest that the current wording of Corina Abraham is excessive in its quotations from and coverage of the contents of the letter to the PM, and appears to be non-neutral and advocating Abraham's stance.

I propose that it should be cut back to:

Note that this removes two sentences that were (and still are) the subject of an earlier disagreement:
 * Whether Scott Ludlam's speech supports the statement about Rethink the Link. (my editreversion, discussion) - the current wording of that sentence doesn't mention Abraham's involvement at all. (Perhaps we need to reword that sentence so it does describe her involvement, and then keep it.)
 * Whether the government deregistered sites "to facilitate the necessary approvals for the Roe 8 project" my edit, reversion, discussion) - that degree of detail is not necessary in article about Abraham (not Roe 8)
 * except that is what Abraham said in her letter to PM that was read out in Parliament, and is quoted inthe article. Gnangarra 14:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Abraham's letter says:
 * Registered sites which were previously enlisted and documented for national record according to the Aboriginal Heritage Act., have now “all of a sudden” been deregistered, and taken off The Department of Aboriginal Affairs, registered sites registry.


 * I believe if you took a short time to read the documented historical recorded factual information, which is readily available. You will start to question the process and the manipulating, disrespect and lack of cultural respect to the custodians and direct descendents of the Beelier Whadjuk Noongars, the actions our West Australian Government took in ensuring this project gets the necessary Federal funding and approvals it requires to complete Roe 8
 * She says that "you will ... question the process ..., the actions the WA Govt took ... to complete Roe 8", but she does not explicitly state that the sites were deregistered to facilitate Roe 8, and so nor can we.
 * If she, or any other source (perhaps the "documented historical recorded factual information, which is readily available"), explicitly states that the govt reregistered the sites to facilitate Roe 8, please quote the relevant passage. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the material I propose removing can and should be included under Perth Freight Link (subject to WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POV), but I think it's WP:UNDUE here. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * the sites deregistered are the very basis for the writs, as a Noongar custodian/elder she was consulted in the previous assessment about those sites, the fact that the previous assessment had established her authority as a Noongar custodian of the area that they failed to consult her as part the new assessment meant the processes and act requirements werent upheld. Gnangarra 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about Abraham, not about the site or the legal process of Roe 8. While it is appropriate to mention her opposition, and the letter, I think that the current wording is excessive in this article. As I suggested, much of the material about the site should be moved to Perth Freight Link, which is now linked from Abraham's article.
 * If "the sites deregistered are the very basis for the writs", perhaps an appropriately sourced statement to that effect should be added to Corina Abraham. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * the other I dont think that its reasonable to reword something and then complain about what it doesnt cover and suggest it be removed. By all means be bold but throwing out a sea of blue links not related to it just appears to be stacking the deck to make your point appear justified. Gnangarra 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what you're alluding to here, but presume that you're referring to my previous edits, your reversions, and subsequent discussion, as per the bullet points under my "Note that this removes two sentences that were (and still are) the subject of an earlier disagreement" above.
 * I deliberately mentioned those (with links, so it's clear to other editors exactly what edits I'm talking about) because I don't want to be seen to be trying to re-apply my earlier deletions "by stealth". I still assert that Ludlum's speech does not support the statement about the "Rethink the Link" group, and that no reference states that the government "removed these sites from the record to facilitate the necessary approvals for the Roe 8 project", for the reasons that I've previously stated at User talk:Mitch_Ames. If the consensus is that we should not significantly trim the "Opposition to Roe 8", in particular if the relevant sentences stay, then I will request other editors' opinions about those specific edits. However, independently of those specific smaller edits, I still think that the entire section needs a serious pruning (which would then make my original edits unnecessary, which is why I have not continued the discussion about those original edits). Mitch Ames (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Roe 8 project has been controversial for a long time, there have been disputes and protests over protecting the area that date back to before Farrington road went through. I dont see any issue with undue here because that is exactly what Corina believes and is fighting for undue is about balance to play down or not report her position would undue. To give a glowing assessment of Roe 8 in an article about an opponent of the project is undue. Gnangarra 10:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think my proposal is "playing down" or "not reporting" her position - it's stating it clearly and neutrally, without the excessive detail that I think belongs elsewhere, in an article/section that is now explicitly linked to. (I've updated my proposed version above to include the link.) My proposed new wording is not "a glowing assessment of Roe 8". Mitch Ames (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

thx
tweet with cropped pic Victuallers (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Opposition to Roe 8
Should the "Opposition to Roe 8" section be shortened to the proposed new version? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that the current wording of Corina Abraham is excessive in its quotations from and coverage of the contents of the letter to the PM, and appears to be non-neutral and advocating Abraham's stance. Previous discussions about this section:
 * Talk:Corina Abraham
 * User talk:Mitch Ames

I propose that the section be replaced with the following: (Note that this version has been expanded since my original proposal.)

--
 * Discussion
 * Support change This is a concise, neutral summary. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support change - Agree with above user. To avoid WP:UNDUE the section should be condensed while still accurately reporting what is covered in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support section trim. New version is concise. This will probably need expansion in the medium term, however. I would also suggest incorporating other views into this, such as those held by Albert Jacob or Peter Collier. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "...incorporating other views into this, such as those held by Albert Jacob or Peter Collier" — I suspect that it might be more appropriate to expand Perth Freight Link, possibly by adding a "controversy" or "opposition" (or similar) sub-section, and then add (for example) to Corina Abraham. Wikipedia does need more material about the Roe 8 "fight" (balanced, neutral, with view points from all sides), but the bulk of that material should be in Perth Freight Link or a separate Roe 8 article, not in Corina Abraham. Abraham is a player in the drama, but by no means the only one. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support change - As noted above it's concise, – Davey 2010 Talk 11:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has rejected the challenge
As first posted by at the WA wikiproject page, the Supreme Court has rejected Abraham's challenge. The published decision is here; the table of contents starts on page 5. To sum it up very briefly, the Judge found that Main Roads consulted with Cockburn Aboriginal Advisory Committee (CAAC) through its Chairman, Rev Sealin Garlett, and there was no requirement for them to consult with Abraham personally, either in her role as a custodian for her people, as a co-chair of the CAAC, or as an individual with a personal connection to the land. The basis for this is mainly covered in pages 25-33. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've inserted the relevant link to the WA wikiproject page into 's post above. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article (also Perth Freight Link). Mitch Ames (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)